OPINION: Our government, your rights: The big chill on scrutiny

Officials limit flow of information to people

Jun. 13, 2013

Our government, your rights

This is the last in a three-day series of editorials about government surveillance and secrecy.

More

ADVERTISEMENT

The revelation of extensive federal government snooping of Americans’ phone call “metadata” and targeted foreigners’ Internet activity might seem far from daily life. Yet it really is not.

Washington has developed a culture of surveillance and secrecy since 9/11 that is ripe for potential abuses that could affect our rights. A question to consider: Is government protecting us, or itself as well?

Consider that the same federal government going to great lengths to protect us from terrorists also secretly obtained the telephone records of journalists for The Associated Press and Fox News to catch a news leaker. The Justice Department overreached in a manner that could truly hinder the ability of news reporters to serve as a watchdog on government activity.

If you had a tip about a questionable government program or action, would you feel comfortable now calling those news organizations — or any other? And if the people never learn of that issue, how can we bring pressure to bear on elected officials to do better?

Take Salisbury, where mayor and potential Maryland lieutenant governor candidate James Ireton continues to do a disservice to city residents and to the First Amendment. He puts up endless hoops for news reporters to jump through in order to get answers about something as basic as an overnight crime in the city.

Ireton keeps his team of city officials far from reporters, in essence cowing them from sharing their expertise and knowledge freely. The result is a trickle of limited and sanitized information, often released far later than it should be.

As the Declaration of Independence states, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” But without solid information, can such consent be informed?